Re: [PATCH 0/6] Yet another approach to handling empty snapshots
- From
Jeff King <peff@peff.net>
- Date
- Jan 24, 2018, 20:38 UTC
- Message-ID
- <20180124203806.GD7773@sigill.intra.peff.net>
- In-Reply-To
- <cover.1516791909.git.mhagger@alum.mit.edu>
On Wed, Jan 24, 2018 at 12:14:10PM +0100, Michael Haggerty wrote:
Show 11 quoted lines
> This patch series fixes the handling of empty packed-refs snapshots > (i.e., those with `snapshot->buf` and friends equal to `NULL`), partly > by changing `snapshot` to store a pointer to the start of the > post-header `packed-refs` content instead of `header_len`. It makes a > couple of other improvements as well. > > I'm not sure whether I like this approach better than the alternative > of always setting `snapshot->buf` to a non-NULL value, by allocating a > length-1 bit of RAM if necessary. The latter is less intrusive, though > even if that approach is taken, I think patches 01, 02, and 04 from > this patch series would be worthwhile improvements.
This looks good to me. I agree that 1, 2, and 4 are improvements regardless (but 4 as it is now depends on 3, right?).
I don't have a strong opinion between this series and the other options presented. It's probably not worth agonizing over, so we should pick one and move on.
-Peff